Wow, this thread has been really enlightening - I thought everyone in the science/amateur-science community "believed in" anthropomorphic, accelerated climate change!

Well, I'd guess that 97% likely do.

By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about "global warming" versus "climate change". Unfortunately, the average person in this country seems unable to grasp the difference between weather and climate, and I sure do get tired of hearing about how climate change is a hoax because it's snowing in Bumfuk, Nebraska.

On a scale that is relevant to individual humans, climate change is typified by weather extremes......the "global warming" part will happen over longer spans of time, although those longer spans of time appear to be much shorter than originally predicted.

Wow, this thread has been really enlightening - I thought everyone in the science/amateur-science community "believed in" anthropomorphic, accelerated climate change!

Well, I'd guess that 97% likely do.

By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about "global warming" versus "climate change". Unfortunately, the average person in this country seems unable to grasp the difference between weather and climate, and I sure do get tired of hearing about how climate change is a hoax because it's snowing in Bumfuk, Nebraska.

On a scale that is relevant to individual humans, climate change is typified by weather extremes......the "global warming" part will happen over longer spans of time, although those longer spans of time appear to be much shorter than originally predicted.

Agreed. The effects go beyond environmental preservation/conservation as well. All of Australia and most of the southwestern US are predicted to become significantly drier in the next century or so, independent of changes in temperature. It's already happening here, as droughts have become longer and drier, and weather patterns have completely changed in some places. Coffs Harbour in northeast NSW was once a major banana producer, but reductions in rainfall in the past decade have nearly completely killed off the local crop and only a few diehards remain.

When the southwest gets drier, New Mexico and Arizona will effectively cease to be inhabitable to humans, because neither have good long-term water reserves. New Mexico simply had none to begin with and Arizona's (the Colorado River) is already too tapped by Colorado and Utah, and most of the remaining water rights belong to California.

It's not just a problem for polar bears, folks. The idea that most species would be fine as long as the habitats were contiguous is also laughable- sure, it would help some, but many species still wouldn't be able to move/adapt fast enough, and as a result there would still be localized extinctions. Any localized extinction disrupts a local foodweb, which can have ripple/cascade effects from the primary producer to the top predator. Also, even if these effects didn't happen and species were free to move (and did), that still doesn't help the species that have already reached the tallest mountain/northern-most latitude. They're doomed from the start unless they can adapt and outcompete the species encroaching from below... but then the encroaching species would be threatened.

It's pretty simple. The world isn't going to end or blow up or anything like that, and not all life will be wiped out, and certainly some life either won't be affected or will adapt, and speciation will act to fill empty niches just as it always does. WE will be the ones to suffer, either through direct effects on ourselves (ie water loss = famine), indirect effects as a result of food web collapse (= famine), or at least from the loss of countless species we used to be able to walk outside and see on a daily basis (loss of quality of life, at a minimum). The world will remain, but life as we know it will change, and only for the worse.

And don't forget the effects of excess CO2 on ocean pH.... and the pollutants pumped out by "clean" coal (mercury, selenium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, strontium, thallium, vanadium, and more, nearly all of which have clear-cut reproductive and health consequences for vertebrates... including us... and that's just from the combustion effluents and ash and doesn't take into account leachings from coal mining).... and oil spills, etc. etc. etc.

When the southwest gets drier, New Mexico and Arizona will effectively cease to be inhabitable to humans, because neither have good long-term water reserves. New Mexico simply had none to begin with and Arizona's (the Colorado River) is already too tapped by Colorado and Utah, and most of the remaining water rights belong to California.

I believe this is going to be the first and possibly most catastrophic result of climate change, and as you say, we're already seeing it. The fastest-growing major cities over the last couple of decades also happen to be, almost without exception, cities that have no water supply.....Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc. As precious as oil seems to be to our society, water will become the commodity that wars will be fought over. And this will happen in our kids' lifetimes. Much of South America gets nearly 100% of its water from Andean glaciers, which are predicted to disappear completely within forty years. This will leave millions and millions of people without any water, period.

It's not just a problem for polar bears, folks. The idea that most species would be fine as long as the habitats were contiguous is also laughable- sure, it would help some, but many species still wouldn't be able to move/adapt fast enough, and as a result there would still be localized extinctions.

Just for the record, if that was in reply to me, I was not saying that most species would be fine if habitats were contiguous, just outlining how populations can and have survived past climatic events and how we as humans have compounded the issue by destroying so much habitat, so species that may have survived in a past climate change would be screwed this time around. Just another factor in the bigger picture.

Wow, this thread has been really enlightening - I thought everyone in the science/amateur-science community "believed in" anthropomorphic, accelerated climate change!

Well, I'd guess that 97% likely do.

Indeed! And (finally) a growing portion of the nonscientific public, too, despite the huge disinformation campaign being waged against it. You're in Austin (where the average person is rather more enlightened than in the rest of TX) so maybe you haven't seen it, Mark, but while I was living in the DFW area it was obvious to me that over the years more and more people there were coming around to admitting the problem is real. Too bad it takes things like years of severe drought, etc. to convince folks - and they're still not willing to actually do anything to solve the problem.

Mark Brown wrote:

By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about "global warming" versus "climate change"...

Make that "climate changing pollution" and I'm on board. I know it's somewhat less elegant, but it's far more accurate (as it emphasizes its human cause) and a good deal harder to attack with dishonest propaganda (as by now everyone knows about - and has no trouble believing in - pollution).

VanAR wrote:

but it's all bread, circuses, sunshine, and gravy for most people

So long as the river water beneath their kayak doesn't look disgustingly polluted, everything's apparently just fine...

All of Australia and most of the southwestern US are predicted to become significantly drier in the next century or so, independent of changes in temperature. It's already happening here, as droughts have become longer and drier, and weather patterns have completely changed in some places.

I am not saying one way or the other in regards to global warming, but I think it is not wise for us, with our finite lifetimes, to say it has never been this bad before (regarding droughts). There is a lot that we still have to learn about the geologic and climatic history of our Pretty Blue Planet.

Note that I never said it would be worse than ever, however it is difficult to argue that conditions will be better for humans when somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50 million people rely on the Colorado River alone as a sole source of water, and if one of these megadroughts hits that area most, if not all, of that water will cease to exist. It's a bit of a strawman, IMO.

I don't know if we'd be "just fine" without the habitat destruction, but I think it is certainly pretty obvious that habitat destruction and climate change build on each other in extremely unhelpful ways.

The talk about Prius is nice, but individual choices to reduce gas mileage aren't really going to impact climate change at all (especially when coupled with current car ownership levels and driving patterns).

If you look at the gap between how we're currently using resources and where we need to be for unsustainable destruction to stop (not just climate change, but a whole host of negative effects), then it's clearly time that we start taking much more significant measures. Those of us who are the wealthy of the world need to think about not owning a car at all, sourcing food and other goods locally (and probably eating far less meat), living in much smaller homes, etc.

Back in the early 1970s, there were a few papers published that suggested that global cooling might become a problem at some point. But even then, the papers predicting global warming outnumbered the ones predicting global cooling by a heavy majority. The scientific consensus never formed around global cooling, and even individual faction didn't go much beyond speculation. By the mid-1970s, the scientific consensus was strongly showing that the warming effects heavily outweighed the cooling effects, and over the next 30 years the data has only become more and more conclusive.

The talk about Prius is nice, but individual choices to reduce gas mileage aren't really going to impact climate change at all (especially when coupled with current car ownership levels and driving patterns).

If you look at the gap between how we're currently using resources and where we need to be for unsustainable destruction to stop (not just climate change, but a whole host of negative effects), then it's clearly time that we start taking much more significant measures. Those of us who are the wealthy of the world need to think about not owning a car at all, sourcing food and other goods locally (and probably eating far less meat), living in much smaller homes, etc.

I'm all for each of us doing whatever s/he can, but if we stick to personal lifestyle choices I'm afraid all we're doing is another form of sugarcoating. The bald truth is that we can make all the personal lifestyle changes we can think of and we won't make all that much headway in dealing with the problem. Industries producing climate changing pollution need to be regulated much more meaningfully. For that to happen people need to elect and support politicians who will pursue it. I'd say that what car we drive, how big our house is, etc. pales in comparison to how we vote. If we vote for politicians who promise tighter, more rigorously enforced regulation - and there certainly are some such out there, if you look for them (but I don't think you'll currently be finding any (R)s behind their names) - then there's a chance to turn things around, but if we vote for politicians because they pander to cries for "Lower taxes!", "Smaller government!", "More restrictions on abortion/fewer restrictions on guns!", etc., or if we don't vote at all, then there isn't.

As I've said numerous times previously on these message boards, my own view is that things are unfortunately going to have to get a lot worse before enough people become willing to look past their own short-term self-interests and get back to trying to do the right thing by future generations. A heck of a lot that we have now will be gone by then, of course...

Jonathan, you do realize that you're trying to reason with someone who is at best displaying some rather profound willful ignorance and at worst is trolling this message board on this topic, don't you?

I'm surprised nobody pointed out the idiocy of that logic just on its face. A lack of proof does not equal a falsehood. There are very few, if any scientific investigations that are "proven". In fact, any scientist worth his salt would adhere to the believe that scientific "proof" is impossible. The closest science can get to "proof" is scientific laws, which if you will notice even the THEORY of evolution has not attained the status of "LAW", despite overwhelming evidence from multiple disciplines supporting its validity.

There is a staggeringly significant amount of data that suggests the earth's climate is changing extremely rapidly. Most importantly, it is changing at a greater rate than most species' adaptation can counterbalance. So, is a globally changing climate bad for amphibians? Yes. Unequivocally.

The heart of what you're talking about though is global "warming" vs. global "climate change". There is an ever increasing number of individuals in the scientific community that are abandoning the idea that the earth's average temperatures are climbing simply from human causes alone. But, the increase in solar activity (which is likely the primary contributing factor to increases in temperature here on earth) further compounds those human caused changes to local climates through habitat loss, pollution, spread of disease, etc... So a warming climate (which is pretty damn close to "proven") can exacerbate the problem of climate alterations outpacing a population's ability to cope with such rapid change.

If lack of proof = FALSE, no scientific discoveries are even possible.

Note that he both warns of dire consequences should we fail to act sufficiently to ward off the worst effects of climate changing pollution, and expresses cautious optimism that we might even have at least a bit more time in which to do so than was previously thought. Once again, no "end of the world" talk nor suggestion of "panic" here, despite what you might hear from industry's right-wing mouthpieces or the people they've duped, just serious talk about a serious problem and the serious measures needed to deal with it. Note, too, that although Mann and others try hard to make their results as useful as possible in the sociopolitical realm by speaking of dates and thresholds, they also take pains to emphasize that these are offered as guides rather than hard lines. They'd be the first to say that no one knows exactly what will happen exactly when; they mean only to offer us the most accurate range of possibilities - the most likely outcomes - their data currently afford. And their data and the models they plug them into have been doing a phenomenally good job at predicting what's happening for quite some time now. They'd also be the first to point out that whether a given threshold turns out to be somewhat better, somewhat worse or just as they predict, or whether we cross that threshold somewhat before, somewhat after or just when they predict it, the overall effect will be the same: we will have royally screwed the environment for ourselves, our future generations and a great portion of the other life that shares it with us. People should try hard not to be misled by those who put a self-serving spin on such details or aim ridicule at scientists for attempting to provide them.

I'm going to take the opportunity of this post to repeat the following, too, as it certainly bears repeating:

gbin wrote:

... I'd say that what car we drive, how big our house is, etc. pales in comparison to how we vote. If we vote for politicians who promise tighter, more rigorously enforced regulation - and there certainly are some such out there, if you look for them (but I don't think you'll currently be finding any (R)s behind their names) - then there's a chance to turn things around, but if we vote for politicians because they pander to cries for "Lower taxes!", "Smaller government!", "More restrictions on abortion/fewer restrictions on guns!", etc., or if we don't vote at all, then there isn't.

The unfortunate thing about your last comment - a comment with which I wholeheartedly agree - is that in this age of misinformation and strident anti-science rhetoric, it's nearly become political anathema for anyone on either side to come out and publicly endorse what science has known to be true for decades. I wish I could see hope on the horizon, but in a time when some of our schoolkids are being taught that evolution is an unproven theory and that scientists have some hidden agenda and can't be trusted, I don't see things getting better in time to change our disastrous course.

I also agree with the comment above about scientific "proof". There is no "proof" that the sun isn't a big incandescent lightbulb, or, for that matter, that God exists.

Yup, Mark, that's why I say that I believe things are going to have to get a lot worse yet before they have much of a chance to get better, because people still don't care anywhere near enough to actually do anything meaningful about it. The public - even this especially interested segment of the public here at FHF, with its focus on particular wildlife - just isn't willing to accept responsibility for anything beyond their own personal behavior (if even that), and doesn't pay much attention to anything that doesn't enter their own personal (and decidedly short-term) cost/benefit analyses. How many of us here do you suppose will even bother to vote this year? And of those, how many do you suppose will be persuaded to vote for some rabble-rouser out there wailing that "Taxes are too high!", "Government is too big and meddlesome! It needs to get out of the way of business!", etc.?

It's well known that mid-year elections, such as this year's will be, strongly favor Republican candidates. It's just about as well known that this is because their astonishingly effective propaganda outlets (most notably Fox News and talk radio) are constantly stirring up anger and fear at foolish causes ("Gays are going to be allowed to marry?!?", "They're going to take away your guns!!!", "Christians are under attack in this, God's holy Christian nation!!!", etc.). This chases the people they want to the polls while at the same time chases the people they don't want away (as the latter become disgusted by all things political), and most importantly it distracts everyone from the kinds of issues that truly make a difference to them and their descendants, such as climate-changing pollution and the meaningful regulation of industry that's necessary to get it under control. The folks decrying nearly anything and everything scientific - as science associated with human health and the environment all too often point out the need for oversight and regulation of corporate activities - already have most state legislatures and the House well in hand, and thanks to it being a mid-year will likely have the Senate after this coming election, too. If they somehow manage to get the presidency in another two years as well (always a real possibility, though more people still care about and so vote for that office), then they'll be able to make however many Supreme Court nominations absolutely unimpeded and really stack the deck in every way imaginable - legislative, executive and judicial - for decades to come. Even if they don't get the presidency (and from there an even stronger grip on the Supreme Court than they already have) they'll continue to be able to stop any meaningful action from being taken simply via their control of a divided (or worse, a soon-to-be-united-Republican) congress. Sure, once they're firmly in charge for some time then people will eventually see that they're - and have been for quite a while - a huge part of the problem, and they'll be compelled to change or be voted out of office (once upon a time many/most Republican politicians were actually staunch defenders of the environment, so these things do oscillate), but no one knows how long that will take nor how much we'll all have lost in the meantime. Except that the environmental losses will indeed be considerable.

But we're not supposed to talk about this kind of stuff (here or pretty much anywhere else), as it makes some folks contentious and a whole bunch more uncomfortable...

I began my professional career in wildlife conservation in the mid-1980s, and I said this just as soon as I recognized it to be true which was almost as soon as I began, and it's only become ever clearer to me to the present day: There are two kinds of people who can manage to spend their entire lives working on behalf of wildlife/wild lands conservation: those who can somehow perpetually delude themselves into believing they can turn things around, and those who know they can't but somehow find cause to continue the fight, regardless. I've always been in the latter group. I figure it's a more satisfying way to spend my life than any other, anyway.

We here concern ourselves with herps, which frankly most of the human population (even in advanced countries) really don't care very much about. I started my career working on tigers, a big, fuzzy species just about everyone does care about - very many quite passionately - here, there and everywhere. We've known longer than I've been alive what kind of serious trouble they're in, we've had good ideas of what to do about it for maybe that long, and we've worked much of my life to improve the situation. Some of my colleagues literally spent their entire careers and by far the largest part of their entire lives primarily on that one issue. A great many others have done what they could see a way to do. And what do we have to show for all of it? When I joined that work in the mid-80's we estimated there to be perhaps 6,000-7,000 tigers remaining on earth, and now we figure there to be less than half that number.

Just to put my two cents in, I disagree with fieldnotes that there is no evidence that the earth's climate is changing. However, in my opinion, the vast majority of the evidence points to natural changes that are not occurring faster than usual. 1915-1945 was the fastest period of warming ever recorded on planet earth, yet, between 1945 and 1975, as C02 emissions skyrocketed worldwide, global temps cooled off, and scientists were worried of a new Ice Age by the early 70s. We warmed again between 75 and 2005, but we have started to cool (drastically) once again since. Though fieldnotes appears somewhat misguided, he is correct in that the Antarctic Ice cap is the largest it has been in decades this year, well above the 30-year median, despite low Arctic Ice cover. As for the global warming advocates referencing every hurricane north of Miami as evidence of global warming, they should study some historical hurricane maps, because in the 1950s, multiple major hurricanes (above cat. 3) tracked up the east coast all the way to New York. In addition, we have had some very inactive Atlantic Hurricane seasons in the past half-decade, while the Eastern Pacific is having its coldest recorded temps in half a century. However, the Western Pacific is hotter than ever, with huge typhoons becoming more common. To use an amphibian perspective, Marbled Salamanders were sighted here in Michigan in the 50s, but were gone by the late 80s. Further, I remember reading, but cannot now recall where, that some populations of Appalachian Salamanders were devastated by the cold winters of the 1970s. My point here is that we don't drive the cycle as much as we think we do, that those who complain about global warming but can't tell you what the ozone layer is and shop at a super-sized shopping mall with goods shipped in on roads that fragment habitat, bought in places that used to be habitat, are the largest problems facing the amphibian community. Yes, natural change will cause some volatility in sally populations, but that is to be expected. The one issue I think that we can all unite on is that mindless expansion of suburbia into former wilderness and former farmland alike needs to be abated. A salamander might be able to withstand one more or one fewer degree of average temperature, but survival becomes pretty difficult for that specimen in a concrete jungle. Fun fact; water vapor is four times as effective as a greenhouse gas than C02. So, if you do believe in global warming, pray that we don't get water-powered cars anytime soon. Happy herpin' and greetings from the polar-vortex ravaged Midwest, Jefferson

You're seriously overvaluing your verbiage. I'm not going to bother going through your entire post debunking each and every bogus argument made in it, but simply point out that they have indeed all been debunked - thoroughly and repeatedly - by others in the past. Just one example for demonstrative purpose:

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

. . .

Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):

"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."

Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s

Interested folks can look up the debunking of the other BS Jefferson dumped above for themselves.

Jefferson wrote:

... global warming advocates referencing every hurricane north of Miami as evidence of global warming...

Uh-huh. And they've done that where, exactly? Oh right, they actually haven't - but grossly exaggerating the arguments of one's opponent makes it easier to ridicule them. If some folks might find it persuasive, who cares if it's dishonest, eh?

One is left to wonder whether those who are (for whatever reason) committed to denying the problem of climate-changing pollution are even capable of putting forth a simple, honest argument on their own behalf. I suppose it's understandable that they resort to all of their deceits, though; after all, they're trying to argue against an already overwhelmingly large and still constantly growing body of scientific evidence.

One of the first things I learned as a scientist is to not trust other scientists.

That's a gross oversimplification that could easily lead nonscientists astray. Skepticism is inherent to good science, yes, but a good scientist also knows to put the bulk of his/her belief behind the bulk of the available scientific evidence (said evidence being far more important than the people who produced it). And anyone who bothers to look will find a huge amount of scientific evidence supporting the idea of climate changing pollution and its effects - that's why an overwhelming percentage of scientists are convinced it is a serious problem.

M Wolverton wrote:

I don't have the background knowledge to say much about gw/cc one way or the other. It sure is politicized though.

It sure is. Hmmm, why do you suppose that's the case? (Hint: Who has the most to gain from the subject being politicized?)

I would really like to see all "denier" politicians sign their names to a document, stating their views on climate change. That way, in fifty years, when our children and grandchildren are dealing with the consequences and wondering how in the hell this generation completely dropped the ball, there will be no doubt as to where to place the blame.

First off, I didn't really want to get into a scuffle here. Second of all, I'll address the hurricane point. Yes, those who believe in global warming (climate change) due to humans did use "Superstorm Sandy" as evidence of their theories multiple times on every cable news show between here and Timbuktu. That line of argument is rejected by the previously larger number of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, especially in the 1950s. To the point of the 1970s, whether the scientists thought that the climate was cooling because of CFCs or Ralph Nader; they still thought that the climate was cooling during an unbelievable expansion of the global emissions of C02. As for the "scientific consensus", it really only exists among a narrow group of scientists-- climate scientists. When meteorologists are taken into account, as Dulio references in his book on American government and policy (which is largely written from a liberal perspective otherwise) "there are more skeptics than believers." I'm not saying that our climate isn't changing, I'm merely saying that there are plenty of people who disagree with the "we're causing it all" line of thinking. I'm not going to post again because I don't believe in alienating myself among a group with which I have so much else in common, but I'll just close by saying that the "97% of climate scientists agree" stat only includes those scientists that primarily publish about climate change. How many scientists that don't believe that we can really change the climate track are going to routinely publish about it?Jefferson

First off, I didn't really want to get into a scuffle here. Second of all, I'll address the hurricane point. Yes, those who believe in global warming (climate change) due to humans did use "Superstorm Sandy" as evidence of their theories multiple times on every cable news show between here and Timbuktu. That line of argument is rejected by the previously larger number of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, especially in the 1950s.

While you can't really pinpoint a single storm to climate change (regardless of what the media thinks), having a huge storm like superstorm Sandy is what is predicted under current models. The number of hurricanes is an issue, but with Sandy, it was the size.

Quote:

To the point of the 1970s, whether the scientists thought that the climate was cooling because of CFCs or Ralph Nader; they still thought that the climate was cooling during an unbelievable expansion of the global emissions of C02.

This was a media driven hypothesis, and didn't have nearly the scope of research behind it that climate change today has.

Quote:

As for the "scientific consensus", it really only exists among a narrow group of scientists-- climate scientists. When meteorologists are taken into account, as Dulio references in his book on American government and policy (which is largely written from a liberal perspective otherwise) "there are more skeptics than believers."

Meteorologists don't study climate. They study weather, which is a short term phenomenon. Climate is long term. It would be like saying ornithologists understand rattlesnake ecology because they study birds, which are also reptiles. They're so far removed that ornithologists don't likely have a clue about nonavian reptile ecology.

Quote:

I'm not saying that our climate isn't changing, I'm merely saying that there are plenty of people who disagree with the "we're causing it all" line of thinking.

I think this line of thinking might be media driven. I haven't read a single peer-reviewed paper that has said "we're causing it all" and I would disagree with that sentiment. I think humans are influencing climate in a tangible effect beyond natural fluctuations. Climate changes naturally, but our perturbations are causing greater changes than normal.

Quote:

I'm not going to post again because I don't believe in alienating myself among a group with which I have so much else in common, but I'll just close by saying that the "97% of climate scientists agree" stat only includes those scientists that primarily publish about climate change. How many scientists that don't believe that we can really change the climate track are going to routinely publish about it?Jefferson

There are plenty of examples of hypotheses that have been published that rocked current thinking. When these are published, they, justifiably, get a great amount of scrutiny to make sure that the new hypothesis holds up to the scientific rigor. Sometimes, these hypotheses are disproven, sometimes they hold true. Why wouldn't a scientist, if they have data supporting natural climate variation rather than human influenced, publish those data? Some scientists have tried, and it turns out it was shown that they were falsifying or misinterpreting the climate data available. I can't think of a single scientist who would not publish if they had solid data to support an alternative hypothesis. I think the deniers don't publish because they don't have the rigorous data to support their position.

I'm trying to abstain from joining this argument, mostly because it seems like the majority of folks posting more or less have similar views as my own and are able to express them more eloquently than I.

But this statement tickled my funny bone:

Quote:

As for the "scientific consensus", it really only exists among a narrow group of scientists-- climate scientists.

Quote:

"97% of climate scientists agree" stat only includes those scientists that primarily publish about climate change. How many scientists that don't believe that we can really change the climate track are going to routinely publish about it?

What youre saying is: "Yes, only the experts whose job it is to research and be knowledgeable about the subject agree on it.". Well what other opinions really matter? If I break my leg, i'm going to go to a Dr of Medicine, I'm not going to go to a molecular biologist, whom I may respect and hold in high esteem but its just not his field so he's not going to be as knowledgeable about it. You're not going to see too many papers on evolution from someone who studies Astronomy and vice versa. Your logic is flawed, they're the ones publishing the papers because they're the ones doing work/research with the topic so yeah of course researchers from other fields aren't going to be publishing about it. Having said that, I believe that most of the scientific community does agree about climate change, mostly because they see how scientific evidence overwhelmingly stacks up and a science minded individual is going to believe the evidence rather than his/her feelings, political roots, etc... I dont recall if it was in this thread or a different one but I remember reading a post where someone said "the only thing scientists like better than being right is proving other scientists wrong" or something along those lines, you can bet that if there was grounds to disprove it some of the climate scientists would do just that, the fact that with so much research they haven't speaks volumes.

Quote:

I'm not going to post again because I don't believe in alienating myself among a group with which I have so much else in common,

Frankly, I'd say don't worry about it. We bicker from time to time, I don't think the vast majority of us take it personally, i know I don't. Not saying go ahead and argue nonstop, but I wouldn't be too worried about sharing your thoughts or opinions. As long as you don't resort to insults and childish behavior I don't think you're gonna alienate yourself.

Yet another person in denial about climate-changing pollution is doubling down on dishonest arguments against it, I see...

gbin wrote:

Jefferson wrote:

... global warming advocates referencing every hurricane north of Miami as evidence of global warming...

Uh-huh. And they've done that where, exactly? Oh right, they actually haven't - but grossly exaggerating the arguments of one's opponent makes it easier to ridicule them. If some folks might find it persuasive, who cares if it's dishonest, eh?

Jefferson wrote:

... Yes, those who believe in global warming (climate change) due to humans did use "Superstorm Sandy" as evidence of their theories multiple times on every cable news show between here and Timbuktu...

Ah, so the fact that some talking heads on television might have pointed to Sandy as an effect of climate-changing pollution (which in some ways it might in fact have been) now equates to "global warming advocates" in general, eh? (What exactly were those "cable news show[s]," by the way? Let me guess, were they actually Fox News commentators complaining about folks on every other cable news show doing that - whether those other folks did or didn't really do so? Yeah, that's about what I figured.) And that one storm now equates to "every hurricane north of Miami"?

Please don't try to weasel out from under your own dishonest words, Jefferson. I know what you were doing, you know what you were doing, and everyone else here knows what you were doing: grossly exaggerating the view of people who believe that climate-changing pollution is a serious problem in order to dishonestly ridicule them. It's an exceedingly common, deceitful tactic used by those in denial on this subject, and one that has been pointedly dealt with previously in this very thread. Let's not pretend otherwise, shall we?

Jefferson wrote:

... To the point of the 1970s, whether the scientists thought that the climate was cooling because of CFCs or Ralph Nader; they still thought that the climate was cooling during an unbelievable expansion of the global emissions of C02...

A few scientists thought CFCs were causing the climate to cool because they had good reason to think that, and thought that the situation could cause real problems if it weren't addressed because they had good reason to think that; fortunately the problem was addressed. In any event, it was the media - not the scientific community - who trumpeted a coming ice age, and a great majority of interested scientists in the 1970s (as now) thought that global warming - not cooling - was the overall climatic trend. You grossly misrepresented the situation by claiming that "scientists were worried of a new Ice Age by the early 70s" to dishonestly make it appear as if scientists had flip-flopped on the issue. Again, let's not pretend otherwise.

Jefferson wrote:

... As for the "scientific consensus", it really only exists among a narrow group of scientists-- climate scientists...

This isn't at all true, either, and as with your earlier deceits I feel sure you already know that. (Interested readers can readily find refutation of this tired, old BS via an internet search of credible sources, too.) Yes, it's easier to spread disinformation than to correct it, but how effective do you suppose such dishonest propaganda is when you've now been repeatedly outed for it?

Jefferson wrote:

... I'm not going to post again because I don't believe in alienating myself among a group with which I have so much else in common...

Then you might consider restricting yourself to dealing honestly with contentious issues. As I told the last person in this thread who tried putting on your same, sorry act, I don't care whether you believe that climate-changing pollution is a serious problem, nor whether you endeavor to put forth arguments against that belief, but I do care and will call you on it when your arguments are based on deceits.

Just to add for further angle of doom and gloom...We are currently living way beyond the carrying capacity of the world - that is, the gross productivity of the world each year (and what the world is physically able to produce) is well short of what we consume each year. This situation is possible as we are currently harvesting resources that took millions of years to produce (coal, oil, gas etc). Essentially, instead of carefully skimming off what the earth is capable of producing each year, we are aggressively dipping into its 'savings'. Once these resources have been fully harvested - and we are getting very close to and accelerating towards this point all the time, then there will be mass war, famine, drought, disease epidemics etc and ultimately the collapse of civilisation. This is likely to happen in a much shorter timescale than any significantly deleterious effects of climate change - though of course climate change ain't going to help the situation.

Our overriding problem that if curable would fix pretty much every major global problem is that we have too many humans on the planet, and while I am certainly not trying to advocate apathy, lifestyle changes are not going to make a blind bit of difference in the long run. The only salvation to this I can see is a strict 1 child policy-type population control until the global population drops to a level where we only need to consume each year what the planet is capable of producing. If we make a technological breakthrough that increases productivity then fine, we can relax the policy in a controlled manner until population matches the new productivity. It is unbelievably draconian and will never in a million years occur as who (other than me and a few other crazies) would ever willingly vote for that system? Unfortunately we have not got a million years, not even 1,000 years if the majority of population economics papers are to be believed.

Just for fun, I'll post again. First to krisbell, I completely agree that global population growth is a huge problem. No matter how efficiently we use energy, the situation of our wilderness areas, the economics of energy, or the economics of anything else will be pretty dire if 11 billion people inhabit the earth's surface. To Gerry, I resent the implication of deceit. Not just "talking heads" have been on news programs drumming up support for carbon-control measures by referencing the destruction that "more powerful and frequent" storms such as sandy are inflicting. Noted scientists that are pro-global warming such as Bill Nye have been on CNN talking about climate change through Sandy. However, as I said, the past five years have been some of the most inactive ever in the Atlantic Basin, and many larger hurricanes tracked up the east coast in the 1900s. I don't see this as deceit, just an objective look at the facts. When you try to "call out" an argument based upon fact and historical record as "deceit" because I used a little bit of sarcasm (every hurricane N. of Miami), I don't appreciate the false accusation. Is it a fact that the past five years have seen flat-lines in temperature increases? That the antarctic ice cap is growing to record sizes according to NASA, not Fox News? That global temperatures did cool from 1945-1975 despite global industrialization? To the point of "climate scientists", how many would have jobs with federal grants if they said that we couldn't control global climactic patterns? To the point of meteorologists, who are by and large skeptical (go read the American Meteorlogical Society Survey, 89% believe warming is occurring, 59% of those believe we're causing it; that's 53% in 2012 when a historic drought was playing out); if you study weather for 50 or 60 years, don't you have a sense of decently long-term trends? By the way, I don't watch Fox News very often, and observed the scientists that I speak of on CNN and MSNBC trying to stir up support for climate bills. I'm not trying to weasel anywhere, Sir, I'm trying to mongoose. Please don't try to call someone else a liar because your evidence has enough holes in it to be swiss cheese, I'm just on here because I love to field herp. Jefferson

Let's be clear, Jefferson, it is not my intent to imply anything. Rather, I have directly accused you of multiple and repeated deceits, and I have plainly pointed out your words which bear this accusation out. And mostly what you've done in your most recent post is engage in more of the same dishonest nonsense. Ridiculing exaggeration of people who believe climate-changing pollution is a serious problem is deceitful. Misrepresenting the past to try to make it look as if the scientific community flip-flopped on whether the climate is warming overall is deceitful. Misattributing to scientists what was actually done by the media to try to discredit scientists is deceitful. Attempting to portray the issue as one which only a small slice of the scientific community believes in and is concerned about is deceitful. Etc. Your whole approach here has been to sprinkle such BS liberally throughout your posts, blend in a bunch of climate-related facts/pseudo-facts to make it sound as if you're really up on the subject (while mocking as ignorant those who believe climate-changing pollution is a problem), and then pretending that you can't see why we can't all just get along despite our disagreements. Once again, it's not disagreement I'm taking issue with, it is dishonesty.

Some of it is pretty laughable, anyway. For example, this:

Jefferson wrote:

... global warming advocates referencing every hurricane north of Miami as evidence of global warming...

morphed into this:

Jefferson wrote:

... those who believe in global warming (climate change) due to humans did use "Superstorm Sandy" as evidence of their theories...

which then morphed into this:

Jefferson wrote:

... referencing the destruction that "more powerful and frequent" storms such as sandy are inflicting...

before you quite belatedly and feebly attempted to dismiss your ridiculing exaggeration as merely:

Jefferson wrote:

... a little bit of sarcasm...

Probably my favorite, though, is this:

Jefferson wrote:

... Noted scientists that are pro-global warming such as Bill Nye have been on CNN talking about climate change through Sandy...

as if that in any way whatsoever justifies your posting crap such as, yes, let's play this record still one more time just for the fun of it:

Jefferson wrote:

... global warming advocates referencing every hurricane north of Miami as evidence of global warming...

Laughable though it might be, this and the other (generally more substantive) dishonest BS which you've been posting here on this subject - some of which you similarly attempted to weasel away from, some of which you didn't even bother to try to defend - is also offensive to the people and profession who are your target, and insulting to those who you're attempting to mislead.

If you don't like being called a liar - and yes, make no mistake about it, that's exactly what I'm calling you - then don't lie. (Or at least be smart enough not to do it in posts to a public forum, where it remains as clear evidence against you.) As I pointed out to the last person in this thread who indulged in such nonsense, it really is as simple as that.

Regarding the expansion (or lack of decrease) of the Antarctic ice shelf:

"a University of Washington scientist named Jinlun Zhang ........writing in the Journal of Climatology, Zhang argues that about 80 percent of the growth can be explained by changes in the prevailing winds around the frozen continent; the remaining 20 percent, he suspects, might be the result of changes in ocean circulation.

The idea of a connection between changing winds and growing ice isn’t entirely new: a study published last year in the journal Nature Geoscience connected those same dots: in that research, climate scientists tracked the pattern of ice motion and wind direction, concluding that wind was pushing sea ice away from the frozen continent, creating expanses of open water closer in, where new ice could easily form.

Zhang’s new paper looks not at winds in general, but at a phenomenon known as the polar vortex, a circular pattern of winds that swirls around Antarctica."

From what I've read, the prevailing opinion among climate scientists is that this phenomenon is likely the result of, not in spite of, climate change.

Regarding your comment re: scientists and federal grants, have you ever known anyone who did science for a living? With rare exceptions, it's not a lifestyle to which most would aspire. I compare it with teaching.....there are a few tenured professors who make a might fine living, and then there's the vast majority who do it out of love for the profession and give up most worldly accoutrements in the process.

To Mark: I'm glad I can finally discuss this issue in a civil manner with someone. I totally agree that the Antarctic Ice growth is the result of changing wind patterns, and, thus, climate change, however, when global temps have leveled off and the Atlantic hurricane season is exceedingly mild for a protracted period, despite what most models predicted just five years ago, I am very inclined to attribute the Antarctic growth and most other events to natural phenomena. Do we influence the cycle? Sure, but not nearly as much as we think we do; in my opinion. The basic premise of man-made global warming is simple-more C02, higher average temperatures. The data, at this point, does not soundly support this position. Thank you for presenting your evidence, which is thoughtful and quantitative, without stooping to calling others names. From now on though, I'm sticking to posting about my field adventures, which have been considerably delayed this year due to the coldest and snowiest winter of the past 100 years (in Michigan; I'd hate to get "called out" on exaggerating because I didn't have a qualifier in there).Jefferson

Again, folks, given how much easier it is for people with a dishonest bent to spread confusion or outright disinformation on a politicized subject such as climate-changing pollution than it is for others to clear things up afterward, I strongly urge you to become familiar with one or more of the great websites out there that have long since done a very thorough job of debunking all of the BS continually being put out there. Skeptical Science is an excellent such site on this particular topic.

And don't forget, it matters much more that you vote and how you vote than what car you drive or whether you reuse your grocery bags. Vote for politicians who dare to speak the truth, that more meaningful regulation and enforcement of same is needed on industries that produce climate-changing pollution. Your kids will care a lot more about that than how much you thought you should have paid in taxes, whether you thought government should be smaller, how you felt about gun/reproductive rights, or whatever other hot-button issue less upright politicians try to use to distract you.

To Mark: I'm glad I can finally discuss this issue in a civil manner with someone. I totally agree that the Antarctic Ice growth is the result of changing wind patterns, and, thus, climate change, however, when global temps have leveled off and the Atlantic hurricane season is exceedingly mild for a protracted period, despite what most models predicted just five years ago, I am very inclined to attribute the Antarctic growth and most other events to natural phenomena. Do we influence the cycle? Sure, but not nearly as much as we think we do; in my opinion. The basic premise of man-made global warming is simple-more C02, higher average temperatures. The data, at this point, does not soundly support this position. Thank you for presenting your evidence, which is thoughtful and quantitative, without stooping to calling others names. From now on though, I'm sticking to posting about my field adventures, which have been considerably delayed this year due to the coldest and snowiest winter of the past 100 years (in Michigan; I'd hate to get "called out" on exaggerating because I didn't have a qualifier in there).Jefferson

Just bear in mind that, even though exceedingly cold winters or mild storm seasons may support deniers' claims, these are weather conditions and not climate. When I first started reading about climate change some 15 years ago, the one thing that stood out and upon which nearly everyone agreed was that climate (and weather) from here on out would not be like anything we had seen in the past......"this is not your father's weather". And that has proven to be the case......every year brings more extremes and more records. And in the meantime the sea continues rising.

I fully agree with the above post regarding the planet's resources. It will be a sprint to the finish to see whether we exhaust the planet's supply of water and other life-sustaining resources before we render it unlivable due to climate change.

Wow, this thread has been really enlightening - I thought everyone in the science/amateur-science community "believed in" anthropomorphic, accelerated climate change!

Whenever there are billions of dollars behind promoting any idea I am skeptical in believing the facts. Many people are making bank from the green propaganda. I'll stay neutral on this topic as I'm still considering who's facts to accept as each party creates their own verifiable evidence. I wish science could be as unbiased as the scientific method but even the data derived from using the "tried and true method" can be skewed depending on who's financing the research.

Wow, this thread has been really enlightening - I thought everyone in the science/amateur-science community "believed in" anthropomorphic, accelerated climate change!

Whenever there are billions of dollars behind promoting any idea I am skeptical in believing the facts. Many people are making bank from the green propaganda. I'll stay neutral on this topic as I'm still considering who's facts to accept as each party creates their own verifiable evidence. I wish science could be as unbiased as the scientific method but even the data derived from using the "tried and true method" can be skewed depending on who's financing the research.

Are you, then, skeptical about evolution? Think about all of the money being used supporting that concept. Between all of the research materials and effort into teaching it, I would wager millions, if not billions, of dollars go into evolution related media. Just because there's money behind it doesn't mean it's suspect. Climate research alone isn't cheap (think of the specialized equipment they need). I would take validity to your claim if climate scientists were the ones "making bank" on the research. But I have yet to hear of a "rich" climate scientist. Because others have recognized the validity of the research and seek to be the first in making a change (and making money from it) doesn't mean the research itself is in question.

That's just how our society has always functioned. Look at smartphone technology. Apple rolls out with the iPhone and all the other major manufacturers recognize the potential and switch gears. Because smartphones have flooded the market doesn't mean they're suspect in their usefulness.

Whenever there are billions of dollars behind promoting any idea I am skeptical in believing the facts. Many people are making bank from the green propaganda. I'll stay neutral on this topic as I'm still considering who's facts to accept as each party creates their own verifiable evidence. I wish science could be as unbiased as the scientific method but even the data derived from using the "tried and true method" can be skewed depending on who's financing the research.

Let's think hard about this as a serious argument for a moment. Never mind that no one can point to any of these "many people" who "are making bank from the green propaganda," however often the folks at Fox News and talk radio might apoplectically refer to them. Never mind that a principal reason people pursue a career in science is because they see it at a way to get at The Truth about the natural world, and maybe to do some good during their lives as well. Never mind who does (industrialists, other business magnates) and doesn't (scientists, educators, etc.) populate "most wealthy" lists or live rich lifestyles, nor what the outrageous difference in annual salary is between these two groups.

Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that every single scientist on the face of the earth is motivated first and foremost by profit.

Now imagine you're one such scientist.

How are you going to make more money?

1) By working on government-supported research that finds climate-changing pollution is a serious problem and the industries producing it need to be more tightly regulated?

2) By working on industry-supported research that finds no such problem, so no such regulation is needed?

Come on now, this isn't that hard to figure out if you're giving it any real thought.

For sure! And Sean Hannity, I hear, is a great American to boot. (But it's not clear to me: is that because he'll say absolutely anything he can think of to undermine the United States' current President, or for the other fine work he's always doing?)

Really hoping you're joking, but depressed as hell about the fact that many people actually feel that way. As I've said, things are going to have to get a whole lot worse before they have much of a chance of getting better...

Al Gore’s movie and his words are based on lies. American TV News is based on lies… listen to Los Angeles 790 am on the radio or via the internet and you will have a new view and the truth. Salamanders are not disappearing due to global warming, simply because global warming is a lie. 97 percent of scientist don't believe in global warming, because that's a lie too.

If you're going to put your two cents in, at least try to read the thread and not post things that have already been debunked by other people.

As gerry said, there's lots of other stuff that could be debunked within your post as well.

edit: Ah, I see, as Gerry also said, that you tried to double down on it. Again, please read the thread. For 5-6 years a MINORITY of scientists said that the Earth's climate had been cooler for a few years, and MIGHT continue cooling in the future, though it might be OUTWEIGHED by the effects of global warming. And during even those years, the MAJORITY of scientists and of scientific research papers were still focused on GLOBAL WARMING being the primary threat.

There's been multiple run-downs of every climate-focused research paper and climate scientist conference during that period to convince you if you don't believe what multiple people here have already posted.

I'm all for each of us doing whatever s/he can, but if we stick to personal lifestyle choices I'm afraid all we're doing is another form of sugarcoating. The bald truth is that we can make all the personal lifestyle changes we can think of and we won't make all that much headway in dealing with the problem. Industries producing climate changing pollution need to be regulated much more meaningfully.

Industrial pollution is a manner of personal choice. As long as people continue to buy tons of material things, drive and fly thousands of miles, eat enormous amounts of meat, and live in huge homes, they are personally responsible for that "industrial" pollution.

The reason I'm focusing on personal change is

1) Because Priuses, one form of very insignificant personal change, were being talked about

2) Because no politician is ever willing to make drastic public change unless a large proportion of the voting public is already ready to accept the changes personally

3) Because the amount of change that needs to be made is far, far above what can be covered by industrial regulation without making a huge effect on all of our lives.

4) Because no one else is going to agree with us, and be willing to support large-scale public changes, unless they see that we put our money where our mouths are and are already making large-scale private changes ourselves. If we building, heating, and/or cooling large homes, buying tons of personal goods, driving one or more cars thousands of miles and flying thousands of miles on top of that, and eating far far more meat than we need, who are we to tell industry or anyone else that they need to change?

For me, the idea that liberal politicians would make it all better is laughable. Take the most liberal developed nation in the world. Look at their populations average carbon emissions. Tell me - how close are they to the number needed* to stop the continued raising of carbon dioxide levels and start ending global warming? They're all still more than double it, and many are 4-5 times over it. You know why its so hard for even the most liberal countries to reduce their emissions? Because they're rich and they have a lot of stuff, and they like it that way too much to make the necessary change.

* (Most scientists and activists suggest an appropriate goal is to reduce the level of total emissions to less than 1990 levels, to that which the earth can absorb – at least down to 5 billion metric tons. The total emissions goal (5 billion tons of carbon) translates to about 700 kg carbon (5 billion / 7.1 billion people) for each person on earth. That's about 2.5 metric tons of CO2 per person per year. Pretty much every developed county in the world is producing 5-20 tons of CO2 per person.)

(I should also note - 2.5 tons/person is a hopeful goal - other scientists suggest that the true goal needs to be even lower.)

Just for fun, I'll post again. First to krisbell, I completely agree that global population growth is a huge problem. No matter how efficiently we use energy, the situation of our wilderness areas, the economics of energy, or the economics of anything else will be pretty dire if 11 billion people inhabit the earth's surface.

That's very provably false. You're talking about a 50% increase in population. I can easily talk about 1000% differences in resource use and pollution production (and that's just national averages - personal differences are already on the level of 5000% or more). Population will not be the primary answer when the efficiency/consumption needle can be moved FAR more than the population needle ever could.

Just to add for further angle of doom and gloom...We are currently living way beyond the carrying capacity of the world - that is, the gross productivity of the world each year (and what the world is physically able to produce) is well short of what we consume each year. This situation is possible as we are currently harvesting resources that took millions of years to produce (coal, oil, gas etc). Essentially, instead of carefully skimming off what the earth is capable of producing each year, we are aggressively dipping into its 'savings'. Once these resources have been fully harvested - and we are getting very close to and accelerating towards this point all the time, then there will be mass war, famine, drought, disease epidemics etc and ultimately the collapse of civilisation. This is likely to happen in a much shorter timescale than any significantly deleterious effects of climate change - though of course climate change ain't going to help the situation.

Except for the timescale (I think the time scales for these problems are roughly the same), I completely agree with that.

krisbell wrote:

Our overriding problem that if curable would fix pretty much every major global problem is that we have too many humans on the planet, and while I am certainly not trying to advocate apathy, lifestyle changes are not going to make a blind bit of difference in the long run.

I call bs.

krisbell wrote:

The only salvation to this I can see is a strict 1 child policy-type population control until the global population drops to a level where we only need to consume each year what the planet is capable of producing.

How's that 1 child policy working in China in terms of keeping emissions down? Oh, right, China's emissions continue to climb and climb and climb.

There have been lots of countries that have stopped their population growth without a draconian one-child policy. They've done it by reducing abject poverty and improving education and women's rights. Unfortunately, two many people think we have to have one or the other - that we must be either poor and uneducated, or educated and mind-numbingly rich and wasteful.

The only way in which this planet is going to move forward in a sustainable and even remotely humane manner is if those of us who are rich begin to realize that we are living far, far above our means, and back off to a point where we can still be plenty happy (more crap has never made us happier anyway), AND the planet can sustain us.

krisbell wrote:

It is unbelievably draconian and will never in a million years occur as who (other than me and a few other crazies) would ever willingly vote for that system? Unfortunately we have not got a million years, not even 1,000 years if the majority of population economics papers are to be believed.

And it wouldn't do any good anyways. How long would it take for the 1-child policy to actually happen, everywhere (in India? in Africa? in the Middle East?), how would it actually be enforced by non-totalitarian governments, how long before it would actually start to stop population growth, and how would the world be able to sustain us anyway as even the current population began moving toward European/North American production levels?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum